Federal Reports

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is conducting an investigation into allegations that the whistleblower was retaliated against for, among other things, communicating with Members of Congress regarding discrimination and retaliation against the whistleblower. The whistleblower alleged being subjected to retaliatory investigations by CGIS in violation of the Military Whistleblower Protection Act (MWPA). We recently learned that CGIS executed a search warrant against the whistleblower several months after the whistleblower retired from the Coast Guard, but soon after CGIS became aware of the OIG’s whistleblower retaliation investigation. Our information indicates that a CGIS agent obtained the search warrant in connection with a CGIS-directed investigation.

The OIG investigated allegations of misconduct and mismanagement at Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI), a community college in Albuquerque, NM, operated and overseen by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). The complainant alleged that a SIPI manager engaged in sexual misconduct and harassment, and violated Federal travel regulations and U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) policy. The complainant also alleged that other SIPI managers and employees retaliated against her for filing complaints about the SIPI manager, failed to address employee complaints, failed to complete performance appraisals, engaged in improper hiring practices, circumvented the acquisition process, and misused a Government purchase card.We found that the SIPI manager had a sexual relationship with a SIPI student, but neither the college nor the BIE have a policy prohibiting sexual relationships between faculty and students. In addition, several of the manager’s colleagues and direct reports described the manager’s behavior in the workplace as confrontational, abrasive, and argumentative. We did not substantiate the allegations that the SIPI manager violated Federal travel regulations or DOI policy.We also found that SIPI managers did not complete performance appraisals for all employees and that the appraisal process at SIPI allowed managers to determine ratings-based cash awards for themselves. We did not substantiate the remaining allegations, including retaliation against the complainant.

In July 2012, we reported on significant management control weaknesses in the company’s background checks process for the employees it hires, which the company took actions to address. The purpose of this review was to provide an update on the company’s background checks process. Our objective was to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of this process for company employees and contractor employees working in the company.We found that the company has strengthened its background check process since 2012. However, the company’s background check vendor returned more than 54% of background checks in fiscal year 2017 for the company to complete because 1) a contract provision limited the amount of education and employers that the vendor could check, and 2) company officials did not ensure the vendor was adhering to company guidance on how to resolve minor discrepancies. We also found that the company did not comply with its policies for ensuring contractors conduct the required background checks on their employees working for the company. Additionally, the company did not conduct independent audits to verify that the contractors conducted these checks and to ensure that contractors use a company-approved vendor to ensure that checks meet company standards. We recommended that the company strengthen its oversight of the background checks process by ensuring that its vendor follows company guidance for resolving questions about the education and employment histories of prospective employees. In addition, we recommended that the company address background check vulnerabilities in its contractor workforce by clarifying which department is responsible for the following activities, and ensuring that the departments are initiating implementation:• ensuring that contractors self-certify that they completed checks of their employees working in the company • auditing contractors’ compliance with the requirement to conduct checksFinally, we recommended that the company clarify its policy requiring the company to develop a list of approved vendors that contractors can use to conduct checks and initiate implementation.

Prior OIG audits found that hospitals in six Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) jurisdictions counted residents (including interns) as more than one full-time equivalent (FTE) and, as a result, received excess Medicare graduate medical education (GME) reimbursement. This report summarizes the findings of those audits, providing information that may assist the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and MACs to achieve greater efficiency in the operation of Medicare.

We investigated an anonymous complaint alleging that Superintendent Ed Clark of Gettysburg National Military Park (GETT) violated ethics rules by soliciting funds on behalf of the Gettysburg Foundation, a non-Government organization; accepting Foundation-funded travel to events sponsored by the Foundation and those sponsored by other non-Government entities; and hosting a Foundation-funded dinner for his employees.We found that from February 2014 to October 2016, Clark traveled 27 times to attend events organized by the Foundation. We found that Clark committed criminal violations by submitting false travel vouchers and by accepting more than $23,000 in meals, lodging, and other in-kind gifts from non-Government organizations as compensation for his official services. In addition, he violated laws and regulations by failing to obtain required supervisory and ethics approval prior to taking these trips and by failing to report expenses accurately following his trips.We also found that his subordinate staff approved his travel authorizations, that he sometimes traveled without first submitting a travel authorization request, and that he requested full per diem reimbursement even though the Foundation paid for some of his meals during those trips.We found that Clark functioned as GETT’s liaison to the Foundation without prior supervisory approval or consulting with ethics officials. We did not find evidence that Clark solicited funds on GETT’s behalf, but we did find that Clark twice gave statements of support to the Foundation and the Civil War Trust that were included in solicitation letters addressed to members and potential donors.We also found that in September 2015 Clark asked the Foundation to pay for a dinner costing more than $6,000 that Clark and other National Park Service employees and Foundation guests attended, violating the ethics regulation that prohibits soliciting gifts from prohibited sources.We coordinated this investigation with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and on October 17, 2018, we were informed that office had declined prosecution.